Critic to economist: In yet another

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct67% picked this

   indicating that the state of affairs on which the economist's prediction was conditioned

   Why this is right

   The state of affairs on which a prediction was conditioned did not obtain - ugh. Thanks, LSAT. We love you, too. Was there a prediction? Yes, the economist predicted that if the govt. didn't act fast, there'd be a recession. Was the prediction conditioned on something? Hmm. What does that mean. Like conditional logic? Sure, like conditional logic. "If this condition applies, this outcome is guaranteed." The prediction of a recession was conditioned on the trigger "if the government doesn't make changes". The economist was saying that "in a world in which the govt. does not make changes, there would be a recession." And, as the economist is telling us, that is not the actual world. In the actual world, the government did make changes. So this hypothetical universe didn't come to pass. This condition did not obtain.

   Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   67%
2. B

   Only One Prediction4% picked this

   distinguishing between a prediction that has not yet turned out to be correct and one that has turned

   The only prediction being made is "there will be a recession". The economist was never predicting whether the government would or wouldn't make changes. She only said, conditionally, "if the govt didn't make changes, I predict a recession". To the extent that recession was the only event predicted, we can say that we know the prediction turned out to be incorrect. We're not waiting on it to see whether the recession will still come. The economic is saying "my prediction was only if the government didn't make changes. I didn't make any prediction about whether we would or wouldn't have a recession in a world in which the government did make changes." Had our economist said, "I wasn't wrong. The recession is still gonna happen. Just give it a little more time", then this answer would be applicable.

   4%
3. C

   Not Accusing Self-Contradiction6% picked this

   attempting to show that the critic's statements are

   "Mutually inconsistent" means contradictory. The economist is definitely not accusing the critic of having said one thing and said something with the opposite logical meaning.

   6%
4. D

   Not a Counterexample6% picked this

   offering a particular counterexample to a general claim asserted by

   The economist offers a counterfactual to the "if condition" of his prediction. He says a certain fact isn't the case: "it isn't the case that the government failed to make changes". A counterexample to a general claim sounds like "Some people say that if you work hard enough, your dreams will come true, but nobody worked harder than Lenny and he never came close to realizing any of his dreams."

   6%
5. E

   Doesn't Contradict Evidence16% picked this

   offering evidence against one of the critic's

   The critic's two pieces of evidence are - economist predicted "if no change, then recession" - there isn't a recession From these two facts, he concludes that the economist was wrong. The economist doesn't challenge the truth of either of these premises. She just says, "since the hypothetical part of my prediction didn't come true, there's no way for my prediction to be wrong."

   16%